


The Cannibal Text Or

by 4thvar



Category: Homestuck
Genre: And I hope you will too, Detective Pony, Gen, Literary Theory, The Homestuck Epilogues, i hate myself for writing this
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-03-09
Updated: 2020-03-09
Packaged: 2021-02-28 18:55:14
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,683
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/23082079
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/4thvar/pseuds/4thvar
Summary: The Homestuck Epilogue(s) Happened and I’m Gonna Write About That
Kudos: 1





	The Cannibal Text Or

When we speak of the production of the meta-narrative, that is, of the text which is aware of itself, there emerges a question regarding the text’s ideology of itself. All text is ideological - all production is - but the standard model of textual ideology is outward facing - an interpretation of material reality. The meta-narrative distinguishes itself by explicitly engaging in a discursive ideology which constructs itself as a unified subject/object complex. The text emerges as an act of self-interpretation and as the material which is interpreted. I explore this process in the context of fan works in the essay Opposed Meanings in Detective Pony, but here I will elaborate on further principles regarding the application of a critical schema to the “canonical” meta-text of the epilogue(s).

This process of self-interpretation reveals a secondary ideological framework which I will term the meta-ideology. This meta-ideology can manifest itself as either a direct commentary on the text, from within the text (”breaking the fourth wall”) or by introducing secondary paratextual conceits (Pale Fire’s footnotes, or The Blair Witch Project’s persistent VHS-aesthetic framing). These modes of meta-commentary are are not mutually exclusive: Homestuck, our primary subject, blends the two frequently. Fundamentally, para-text covers a category of narrative conceits which comprise a mode of communication that is pragmatically distinct from the standard narrative convention. For a mundane example of this, we can look to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which utilizes letters, diary entries, and newspaper clippings to communicate its story. These para-textual features form a passive commentary on the narrative they convey. Though para-text does not explicitly recognize itself as an interpreted object, its employment implies a consideration of audience that is not present in naïve, or traditionally expository, texts. Manifest meta-narrative, broadly “breaking the fourth wall”, comprises those texts which acknowledge their positions as fictional or otherwise textual works. This can range from the incidental or comedic (Scream commenting on genre tropes) to the fundamental or paradigmatic (Six Characters in Search of an Author and its play-within-a-play).

Using this basic organizational framework, I will make an attempt to analyze the meta-ideology of the epilogue(s), with reference, where appropriate, to the “body” of the work, being the comic itself. This will not comprise a value judgement, and will not be a commentary on the validity of the text, except insofar as canonical validity is destabilized within the text itself.

I will begin with the technical features of the epilogue(s), focusing particularly on the paratextual techniques employed and their contrast with the “body”. The epilogue(s) are primarily conveyed through traditional expository text in the 2nd and 3rd person. This is interspersed with frequent conversation formatted in the style of pesterlogs/tagged speakers, typical of the “body”. The epilogue(s) differ, then, from the “body” by employing the 3rd person frequently (where the “body” almost exclusively used 2nd) and in eschewing visual representation entirely. Additionally, the epilogue(s) introduced one innovative paratextual feature, in the form of a frontispiece designed to resemble an AO3 descriptor page. I categorize this innovation as paratextual, owing to its lack of manifestation in the narrative proper. This paratextual feature accomplishes two pieces of meta-ideological work: first, it destabilizes the concept of “canonicity”, which normally we would assume to be innate and unvarying, by recalling a fanfiction site, and second, by prefacing the epilogue(s) (along with the epilogue(s) being hosted on a separate section of the site), it introduces a discontinuity in time/canon which is integral to later manifested ideology. As for the PoV and medium changes, those also play a role in reinforcing the meta-ideology, but do not, alone, imply a meta-ideological commentary.

When reading the epilogue(s) we are really considering two interlaced narratives which share three chapters of prologue, and trace their differences to a binary decision made by what passes for our protagonist: Meat or Candy? Within this prologue, Rose gives us a principle which may guide our broader interpretation of the epilogue(s) meta-ideology. Rose gives an expository monologue on the supposed conflict of the story, concerning the degree to which the story remains canon, defined as an unfixed attribute delineated by degrees of truth, relevancy, and essentiality. The latter two appear, per Rose’s examples, to be indistinguishable, but truth is distinguished by acting as an indicator of “canonicity”, conditioned by relevance/essentiality. What is true and relevant/essential is canon, while what is true but not relevant/essential is outside of canon, but not necessarily apart from it (”conditionally true”). Finally, non-canon events have no truth, but may still be relevant/essential, existing on an imaginary axis (or, one might suppose, in “fanon”). This is the framework that the epilogue(s) invoke to frame themselves, but it is not one that the narrative intuitively supports. As readers we expect one of two things from a story: an objective accounting of fact, or the motivated retelling of a particular character. Documentary or unreliable narrator. The epilogue(s) embrace neither.

Let’s begin with ‘Meat’: at first it appears to be an objective 2nd person narration, with John as the receiving subject. Later, it is revealed that Dirk has been narrating the the entire first half. For the remainder of the story, he competes for narrative control with Calliope. Dirk is not an unreliable narrator in the traditional sense, as his descriptions are shown to be factually accurate, at least insofar as physical action is concerned. In fact, Dirk’s narration exerts a degree of directive control over the story, compelling characters to act in ways they otherwise would not have. Calliope, while wielding a similar power, avoids utilizing it, instead opting for pure description. But pure relative to what? That is, when Rose speaks of canon, what are these events relevant/essential to? Does Dirk’s description presuppose the actions it describes a la mind control, or is it a more privileged control, essentially narrative in nature?

The answer I propose is that, in-universe, there exists, under the typical Homestuck complications, a purported objective reality against which truth is judged. Relevance/essentiality, on the other hand, only make sense as concepts to us, the privileged audience. The epilogue(s) defy the binary of reliable/unreliable narration because the conceit of narrativity itself is known to the characters within the story, and has an effect on their subjective reality. ‘Meat’ deconstructs the viability of its own abstraction in-universe, by framing itself as a viewed text, with a privileged viewership. (Note that privileged here refers to the position of a generic viewer relative to the narrative, receiving the recognition of the narrating characters, but privy to the competition between them as well.) This privileged viewership is what allows Dirk to conceive of himself in terms of a ‘villainous’ arc; whether this awareness is actual (the character aware of a real viewership) or megalomaniacal (a delusional fantasy on the part of the character) is irrelevant, since the conceit of the privileged viewership is reified by Dirk and Calliope’s belief in it.

On to ‘Candy’. Though I have chosen to deal with it second, this is not meaningful. The works may have been read in any order, and I myself read them piecemeal, jumping back and forth where I thought appropriate. What to say about ‘Candy’? It is (non)-canonically inconsequential. It is exposited factually, and at first appears to be generically narrated, though it is later revealed that Calliope acts as an aloof narrator. A great many things happen which can be described uncharitably as ‘fanficcy’. John, refusing the call to action, struggles to find meaning in this version of Earth C. What is this story’s role in reinforcing the meta-ideology? It does not deal with profound questions of canonicity or narrative authority, as ‘Meat’ does. Even Rose, our central expositor, drops these themes wholesale. Dirk kills himself, unable to conceive of living in an inessential/irrelevant timeline.

I said earlier that ‘Meat’ positioned itself as a viewed text, with the attention of the privileged viewership as the arbiter of relevance/essentiality. ‘Candy’ is the answer to the question of what it is relevant/essential to. There is no objective reality to which ‘Meat’ refers, but in juxtaposition with ‘Candy’ it is given a sense of relative weight. ‘Meat’ and ‘Candy’ form a semiotic pair with “Canonicity” as the common referent, ‘Meat’ being a positive/manifest aspect, and ‘Candy’ being its negative/absent aspect. ‘Meat’, being manifest, has more to say about the actual content of the meta-ideology regarding “canonicity”, but just as sheep and mutton derive their meaning from a contrastive différance, so ‘Meat’ depends on the contrastive position of ‘Candy’ to give meaning to the proposed meta-ideology.

This brings me to the notion of The Cannibal Text. While ‘Meat’ and ‘Candy’ are both necessary to the construction of their contrastive différance, their roles in it are not equivalent. In Opposed Meanings in Detective Pony I described a derivational relationship between the two Detective Ponys in which one took an active role, and one a passive role. The epilogue(s) present a similar contrast. ‘Meat’ does not only derive its relevance/essentiality from ‘Candy’, but also destroys what relevance/essentiality ‘Candy’ may otherwise have had alone. We are presented with two timelines, in a story whose “body” insists on a single valid timeline (all others being doomed or overwritten). Though ‘Candy’ avoids either of these fates, it is nevertheless positioned as the “wrong” timeline, in other words, one which is un-canon. It is only through the interplay between ‘Meat’ and ‘Candy’ that the meta-ideology of “canonicity” can emerge and be applied meaningfully to the text. The text consumes itself, and in consuming itself, is reified. The act of consumption invalidates one timeline to give narrative weight to the other. It is a Cannibal Text, which in commenting on its own position relative to a privileged viewership, must justify its “objective” meaning with the symbolic sacrifice of that which is merely imagined. “Fanon”/’Candy’ is both necessary to contrastively reify canon, and utterly alien to it, having its purported meaning destroyed by the mere juxtaposition of the positive, ‘Meaty’ signifier.


End file.
